Tannishblog

I've been trolling this week anything I find regarding Windows Vista. As part of a postpartum depression for dropping a chuck of money for what is essentially two DVD's (one of which is actually used,) I subconsciously gravitate to the I Hate Windows crowd. Most I could ignore, but one message in particular stood out because the word Zen is prominent in the blog's title. So I click to find out why Leo Won't Be Switching to Vista.

I feel bad, but I trolled him a bit about his attitude. Read the comments. To his credit, he was good-natured about it. Kudos for that.

It got me thinking: The whole computer operating system debate, Windows v Mac v Linux, is really about people's expectations. In fact the way people interact - or don't - with computers is about their expectations of the computing experience.

I'm old enough to remember Tandy's TRS-80, the first truly mass market personal computer. Several other quickly followed, but the early adapters had mixed feelings about these trendy new gadgets. Some people didn't mind learning a few tricks to use them, some were turned off by that.

Later, When the big OEM's emerged, marketing madmen were learning how to sell people on the concept of buying a machine that a person needs to learn how to use. Even today, that issue is being wrestled. These companies took a page out of the automotive industry and began sell their brand, then following up on the details of the tech. Imagine a typical conversation between neighbors:

"Is that a new car in your driveway?" One guy says leaning over the fence for a better look.

"Yep," came the reply, barely hiding pride.

"Looks nice. What kind is it?"

"It's a Jaguar."

No more needs saying. Neighbor number two has arrived. it's unlikely anyone will out-status this guy soon. Dell computers wanted that same dynamic to work for their brand: you went out and bought a Dell, not a Pentium III, 1.5 gigahertz with 512 mb RAM and a Radeon graphics card. But computers are not cars. They can't be sold like any previous product. In fact, there is no "one good way" to sell computers. that's why some sell software foremost; some sell the glitz. Some sell the whole package, and some prefer the components. It all depends on consumer expectation.

Many people, uninterested in the minutia of machinery, just want to take the thing home and plug it in like their TV. After all, it looks like one. (But computers never got as simple to use as a television set. As time progressed, the TV became more like a computer. Today, there's many more connections to be made on your new widescreen than "back in the day".)

Mac users seem to me to be in that category: Just turn the thing on and use it. As response, Apple's software gurus have consistently lead the way to more a intuitive User Interface. Microsoft (and everyone else) has forever played catch-up.

At the other end of the spectrum, the digital equivalent of grease monkeys embraced the hardware itself. To them, software was just what you did when the thing was assembled to prove how well it was built. They gravitated toward command-line programming languages that eventually lead to UNIX and Linux. In terms of point-and-click, these systems, while technically elegant, were way behind the ease-of-use trend.

Fast forward to today, and the two camps still stand between the same lines drawn in the proverbial sand. "That product sucks, this one's great." The truth lies somewhere in between, as truth is wont to do. All operating systems have flaws. The same can be said for all products created by humans. There are Pro's and Con's to, well, anything I can think of.

In terms of computers and human interface software, what you prefer depends largely on how you intend to use it, but also upon what you're willing to put up with. If you're looking for a stable, secure platform, Linux rules. If you want style, simplicity and artistic licence, Mac is your choice. If you want general business and communication, media and entertainment - read: games - "Hello, Microsoft".

Increasingly, the computer is becoming central to our lifestyles. It's only natural to assume it will become a central appliance in our households. Microsoft is ahead of that curve, wisely so. We can only guess what our grandchildren will expect out of their computing experiences. But expectations will continue to drive the industry.

While people are killing each other across the globe (what else is new?), famine, AIDS and more warfare in Africa, Mudslides in Jakarta, and all the other wonderful happening on this beautiful Earth, my fellow Chicagoans are stoked about the Super Bowl. (phew! What a sentence.) I guess it’s a matter of priorities…

Meanwhile, today’s headline is - brace yourself - yet another study on climate change and its causes. You’re sitting down, right? he culprit is… humanity! I know you were surprised by that one. CNN headlines a study by French climatologists (is that a word?) placing the blame squarely on everyone’s heads.

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone," said the 20-page report.

Human-caused warming and rises in sea-level "would continue for centuries" because the process has already started, "even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized," said the 20-page report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Wait! It get better…

[A] 2001 report projected a sea level rise of up to 35 inches.

Many scientists had warned that this was being too cautious and said sea level rise could be closer to 3 to 5 feet because of ice sheet melt.

But despite losing on that battle, scientists said the report is strong.

"There’s no question that the powerful language is intimately linked to the more powerful science," said one of the study’s many co-authors, Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, who spoke by phone from Canada. He said the report was based on science that is rock-solid, peer-reviewed, conservative and consensus.

"It’s very conservative. Scientists by their nature are skeptics."

So what exactly are these skeptics implying must be done?

"What you’re trying to do is get the whole planet under the proverbial tent in how to deal with this, not just the rich countries," Mahlman said Thursday. "I think we’re in a different kind of game now."

[…]

On the war front, a different report illuminates the difference between theory and practice as applied to training Iraq’s "military." Games are being played here, too, and the US of A doesn’t have an updated playbook. Via TPM Muckraker, McClatchy Washington Bureau kindly explains how those pesky Al-Sadr insurgents train their people - with US help. Regarding the Iraqi government’s finest:

"Half of them are JAM. They’ll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night," said 1st Lt. Dan Quinn, a platoon leader in the Army’s 1st Infantry Division, using the initials of the militia’s Arabic name, Jaish al Mahdi. "People (in America) think it’s bad, but that we control the city. That’s not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It’s hostile territory."

These people aren’t stupid. Infiltrate your enemy, get issues their weapons, learn tactics and inside information of strategic significance, then join the other side. Brilliant! Why didn’t the US forces countermand this technique? Political pressure upon the generals.

In hindsight, many American officers said there was too much pressure to give Iraqi army units their own areas of operation, a process that left Iraqi soldiers outmanned, outgunned and easy targets for infiltration and coercion.

"There was a decision … that was probably made prematurely," said Lt. Col. Eric Schacht, a 42-year-old battalion commander in east Baghdad from Glen Mills, Pa. "I think we jumped the gun a little bit."

Al-Sadr’s militia has taken advantage of the chaos.

Iraqi soldiers, for example, often were pushed into the field by Iraqi commanders who didn’t give them adequate food, clothing or shelter, said Etienne, a 1st Infantry Division platoon leader.

Etienne was on patrol one day when he saw Iraqi soldiers eating fresh vegetables and meat. The afternoon before, the same soldiers had complained that they had only scraps of food left. Who’d brought them their meal? It had come courtesy of Muqtada al-Sadr.

OH, the games people play!

I feel the need to say something snarky about "Winning hearts and minds." Give me a minute, it’ll come to me…